Omerta - Town of Mafia (Game over Scum wins)

[NekoNekoRex]

Mitsuki isn't nearly as bad as the other two but that ridiculous "no mafs here" attitude at the start is just right out.

[NekoNekoRex]

Before you ask me about Dan, I'm not voting him because he hasn't actually made any shitposts, mostly because he hasn't posted at all.

Which is bad, obviously, but not as bad as pretending you actually post but not actually posting anything good

[Schezo]

That's an awesome string of scum posts you got there would you like to add any more before I vore you?

[Schezo]

Hmmm that's a great autocorrect. No I won't be eating you but voting you.

[Mitsuki]

NNR, isn't it a little late for a vote on a player nobody has yet commented on? Note that I'm talking about the vote, and not the reasoning. New reasoning is always fine.
I think you should be considering current wagons. There's just a day and three hours left.

Considering the votecount right now (PX has two votes and Paladin only one) it's time to switch my vote, ##Unvote
##Vote: Sky Paladin

Also that's one of the best autocorrects I've ever seen.

[Serela]

NNR, isn't it a little late for a vote on a player nobody has yet commented on?

I was going to say "no", but then again MotK often has consolidation issues d1 >> Still, "over 24 hours left" is still plenty of time left IMO for a new wagon to be brought up to consider. Whether or not NNR's poststring is worthy of delicious devourings is something I'll have to look at later since I have an early workshift and gotta go in a minute

Anyway Mitsuki is it that hard to just give a brief go-over of who you think might be scum :C I don't expect a dissertation or anything but just like, at the very least just a list of who they are if you'd rather I reread your previous posts for the "why"

I mean even if I reread all your posts there's also the part where I'm sure a decent amount of stuff has happened since the last significant ones that could have realistically impacted opinions!

But yeah gotta go, poof

[NekoNekoRex]

Schezo not liking my posts isn't anything new.

[NekoNekoRex]

Then again neither is "Schezo having good posts"

Let's analyze his one good post this game so far... no wait, it's just ranting and a sheepvote for CF7. Never mind.

[NekoNekoRex]

I keep rereading the thread to find where Schezo actually hunts scum and I just can't find it

[Bardiche]

I think NNR's comment on Oarfish is legit. Lynching lurkers would be a refreshing breath of change that I wouldn't mind indulging in. Raikaria trying to retcon the reason I'm voting him and going OMGUS isn't too alluring to move off of yet though.

[Mitsuki]

We're going to have trouble consolidating at this rate and I won't have enough time to make sense of the situation properly before deadline. Sigh.

Serela, is it that hard to go back and read my posts? Anyways I'm not asking you to do so, I'm telling you that if you want to say that I haven't scumhunted you should actually know what I've done in the first place.

But here you are. Paladin > PX (not as bad as before) = Schezo (waiting for him to answer the question I asked him).

I'd rather lynch Paladin than a lurker.

[Mitsuki]

Bardiche, imagine that we're lynching a lurker and you decide on who that is. Who would be your choice?

[O4rfish]

I called CF7 scummy as a joke because his meta is pretty scummy, but also because his post here looked scummy at first glance.

His case on Zak involves some egregious multiquoting and recharacterization without an actual statement. The fact that he does this, combined with the fact that his case hinges on some shaky details, makes him extra scummy.
Digging into the details, he says Zak is suspicious of him only because he voted for Schezo, but he neglects to mention how the reasoning for his Schezo vote here was hypocritical at best.
Then he characterizes Zak as having reason to vote Bard but not actually voting Bard. I think you can disagree with someone's case without having cause to vote them. The reason I am making a different choice is that investigating CF7's case on Zak involves spending more time than the case took to make, by design, which seems extremely scummy.
Then CF7 implies Zak is scummy for casing Sky based on an RVS vote for Serela. The thing about RVS is that it is random. If you provide an actual reason for voting, as Sky did, it cannot be brushed off as RVS, and casing someone based on a vote like that is totally reasonable, especially since we're still in day one.

If we're voting lurkers, I'll vote PX or Dan. Otherwise,
##Unvote. Vote: CF7

[Raikaria]

OK, back from classes. AND STUFF HAPPENED.

By and large I agree with NNR. Except the 'Bard is townie' part. I think Bard's case on me is really flawed. And as I keep stateing, when you can take the cornerstone of one's case upon someone, and replace the name of the person they are voting for with 3~4 different people, and it is still valid, it is not a good case. Also slightly worried that Bard is soft-defending Sky and Sky then 5 mins after he makes a case on NNR flips over and assures everyone Bard's case is good. That said it's far too soon to throw around any serious accusation of scumbuddying.

I am somewhat concerned by the people not posting much, but PX still stands out as by far and away the worst of them, since his posts have almost no content at all and are just 'I'mma vote this guy k bi'.

If we're going for a lurker lynch I'd rather lynch PX for his lack of content despite posting.

Little confused about the final point in O4rfish's post.

[O4rfish]

IS omgus automatically bad?
This stalk of celery provides a good reason for voting Sky Paladin, but people have been calling it OMGUS and saying that Serela is scummy for it.

[O4rfish]

Let me resummarize my final point in that other post.

The last two games, Serela has been dangerously competent and I don't like it.
##vote Serela
Also this post kind of looks weird.

Zachary: That was scummy. *chk chk* *points vote at Sky*
CF7: No, YOU'RE scummy. *chk chk* *points vote at Zak*
Me: No, YOU'RE scummy. *chk chk* *points vote at CF7*

CF7 implied Zak's case on Sky was scummy because Sky was in RVS. I said that Zak was justified in voting Sky on it, and when CF7 called Zak scummy, that was scummy of CF7.

Of course, there are other things going on in this thread which are also voteworthy, and it will take some time to unravel everything.

[WHMZakeri]

By the way, by Serela's case, do you mean Rai's case?

No, I meant Bard's case on Serela, hence why I followed up with "Bard's not scum for (making the case on Serela)".

but he's not willing to vote for Bard, because:
Quote from: Randomly a Catkeri on February 24, 2014, 16:13:48
    As much fun as I'm having pick on Bardiche's cases. I don't have enough evidence to call him scum. He's not a day one lynch to begin  with either, especially considering the number of one shot cops I've wasted on him in the past.

Which is just plain awesome reasoning. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be serious or not.

This is in fact completely serious, and I realize it is kind of shit logic but you should also try to consider that it's the truth.

And yet, the only reason he's voting for Sky_P is this.
Quote from: Randomly a Catkeri on February 23, 2014, 23:08:45
    I can't condone this reasoning because it encourages bad play, which obfuscates scum's position

Which is Sky_P's RVS vote.

Damn. I did catch that I didn't put down reasoning for why I didn't like CF7 but I forgot to do the same for Sky_Pal.
The main point was that the case on Bardiche was grasping. Sky's playstyle is beneficial for scum since, especially during day one when people have no choice but to phone it in, people just want to assume that the content in a post as big as #69 is alright since it's not worth it to look in depth this early, but the case he made against Bardiche was glaringly wrong and seemed to be trying to keep the heat off of himself.

He also fails to follow up Bard's response to the case, and sweeps it under the rug with a case on NNR which quickly switches back to Kill Rai Day One (Specifically for the same reason why I don't buy into the Raikaria Case).
Please let me know if I need to go back and justify anything else because one of my major weaknesses is not realizing that I've forgotten to say things I've though out loud.

My reasons were because Raikaria's actions fit the main thing that I think of when I think of scum play: picking and choosing the cases they want to make, and either ignoring or dismissing posts they don't wish to address.

This is actually a good point and one I missed in your posts. In fact, this is the same point I'm slamming Sky for right now.

[CF7]

Honestly, O4rfish, what a pile of bullshit you posted here. I don't even to repsond to this.
But i guess i'll do it.

I called CF7 scummy as a joke because his meta is pretty scummy, but also because his post here looked scummy at first glance.

My meta is scummy? What are you talking about? IIRC the one and only time i was playing as mafia here, was in last anonymous mafia. So how my meta can be scummy?

His case on Zak involves some egregious multiquoting and recharacterization without an actual statement. The fact that he does this, combined with the fact that his case hinges on some shaky details, makes him extra scummy.

I decided to make a somewhat quote heavy post, because it was kind of hard to do it overwise.

Digging into the details, he says Zak is suspicious of him only because he voted for Schezo, but he neglects to mention how the reasoning for his Schezo vote here was hypocritical at best.

If you haven't noticed i tried to start a discussion and it wasn't pointless.
All Schezo's posts up to that point. Role confirmation, first RVS vote, second RVS vote, his Serela vote where he incidentally called Bard's case on Serela great.
So called great case.

##Vote: Serela
OMGUS? Scum. Not even joking.

When i asked Schezo if his Serela's vote was a RVS vote too, he didn't answer it. Now continuing with Schezo's posts. Zero content post and more zero content
So yeah. Hypocritical. At best.

Then he characterizes Zak as having reason to vote Bard but not actually voting Bard. I think you can disagree with someone's case without having cause to vote them. The reason I am making a different choice is that investigating CF7's case on Zak involves spending more time than the case took to make, by design, which seems extremely scummy.

If you're saying that someone's case is bad, and Zak said that Bard's case on Rai is bad or to quote Zak: "This whole case, especially with the paraphrasing before where I quoted sounds like opportunism to me. Consider me the opposite of sold." Either i'm reading things differently, or that's like calling Bard not scummy for his case and then saying, that Bard is actually scummy.

Then CF7 implies Zak is scummy for casing Sky based on an RVS vote for Serela. The thing about RVS is that it is random. If you provide an actual reason for voting, as Sky did, it cannot be brushed off as RVS, and casing someone based on a vote like that is totally reasonable, especially since we're still in day one.

And your final point. Where's an actual reason? It's a RVS vote. It's a joke a vote. And it's random. I'm not sure about you, but making your vote as a serious vote, based on other's player RVS vote is total bullshit. Also it might be somewhat okay, but at that time Sky_P was the wagon. That sounds like opportunism to me.

So... So, i guess thanks for making yourself look scummier than you were before. Even scummier than Zak.

##Unvote
##Vote O4rfish

Cut by Zak's post which i'll read in a bit.

[WHMZakeri]

IS omgus automatically bad?

Nope. In fact with how Day One has to work, I'd say it inevitable.
Rather, OMGUS is bad, but it's only really OMGUS if the person doesn't provide any reasoning besides "But I'm town." and any other use of the term is misappropriated.

As for lynching lurkers, PX is clearly the worst. The only thing he posted worth reading is a defense for Sky talking about how people are always going to look opportunist one day one.

I think NNR's comment on Oarfish is legit.

I went through Oarfish's posts to find one or two examples where NNR's comment of 2-line shitposts didn't apply and only found two (They were still two-lines but yeah)

Cut by oh, wow you're already flooding my Appeal to Emotion sensors, I want to switch my vote for that alone, I mean cool down it's only Day one.
Still there were plenty of other people that could apply too (PX, Dan), one of which he made a better case on a handful of posts later (Schezo).

I didn't think of it when responding to CF7 but yeah Oarfish's point that a Reason is a Reason regardless of what stage the game is at is true. It doesn't matter since I'm beyond holding him to that point, though.

[WHMZakeri]

That third to last line is suppose to be the last line I don't know how it interupted there, bad cursor.

[WHMZakeri]

My meta is scummy? What are you talking about? IIRC the one and only time i was playing as mafia here, was in last anonymous mafia. So how my meta can be scummy?

Obviously he meant that you're play in general looks scummy, even as town, which is why he talks about saying it as a joke. He's also leading the post into explaining his case on you.

Either i'm reading things differently, or that's like calling Bard not scummy for his case and then saying, that Bard is actually scummy.

The word you're looking for is "Misguided". People can be both Town and Wrong at the same time.
I did say that Bard's case on Raikaria was enough to make me suspicious, but that suspicion isn't big enough that I would consider it over Sky or You right now. It's not even big enough to consider over people who aren't providing content to begin with, like PX and Dan.

Already gave my two cents on that last point in my last post.

[Dorian White]

Wherever there's opportunity, the votecount will be there.

ActionDan (1): ActionDan,
Sky_Paladin (2): Zakeri, Mitsuki
Raikaria (4): PX, Bardiche, Sky_Paladin, Cheez8
CF7 (3): Serela, Schezo, O4rfish
Bardiche (1): Raikaria
O4rfish (2): NekoNekoRex, CF7

Not voting:

Raikaria is at L-3

With 13 mooks kicking, it takes 7 to lynch.
You got around 21 and a half houers left.
Day 1 Timer

[O4rfish]

Hm... Bard has some good ideas. Still his vote on Serela is kind of bad, considering Serela raised a valid point, Sky voted him for it and that's pretty much it. Serela voted back. I think it's just a little misunderstanding, considering Sky haven't posted since that. Plus it is still too early for me to make a decision.
##Unvote for now. Hope you won't turbo lynch someone, while i sleep.

In a later post of yours, you say that Sky was in RVS at the time. In fact, you call Zak scummy for condemning Sky's vote.
But if this is true, then Bard's vote on Serela wouldn't be bad at all!

[Mitsuki]

Oarfish is town putting genuine effort right now. CF7's reaction was terrible but I could also see town act like that.

[WHMZakeri]

In a later post of yours, you say that Sky was in RVS at the time. In fact, you call Zak scummy for condemning Sky's vote.
But if this is true, then Bard's vote on Serela wouldn't be bad at all!

This is actually a super good catch. It's got that "I don't really care about the reasons why I vote for people" feeling down and exposed.
I agree with Mitsuki, but I think it's safe to say the "can also see town acting this way" is just the voice of self-doubt acting up.
It's been a hour now since he said he would respond to my post, which reminds me of how I feel and react to huge posts made by the person I'm voting for when I'm scum, which is to lose all motivation and run away for about 23.5 hours.

With this CF7 just jumped up into biggest fish territory.
##Unvote: Sky_Paladin
##Vote: CF7

[Raikaria]

Then CF7 implies Zak is scummy for casing Sky based on an RVS vote for Serela. The thing about RVS is that it is random. If you provide an actual reason for voting, as Sky did, it cannot be brushed off as RVS, and casing someone based on a vote like that is totally reasonable, especially since we're still in day one.

Seeing as Zakeri highlighted this part I'll re-request that someone explain this because I just get confused attempting to figure out what O4rfish is attempting to say here.

I mean CF7 implies Zak is scummy for Zak thinking Sky is scummy for an RVS vote.

But Sky's vote wasn't RVS so this makes CF7 scum?

I'm not certain if I'm understanding this right.

[WHMZakeri]

It has to do with the part of the quote in Oarfish's post that oarfish put into italics (I know it's hard to see, I missed it the first time and was just as confused as you)

CF7 was defending Serela from Bardiche for by saying Serela's vote on Sky was justified
CF7 was voting me by saying that my vote on Sky was not justified, even though it was the same reason as Serela's

[CF7]

Oarfish is town putting genuine effort right now. CF7's reaction was terrible but I could also see town act like that.

I'm picking apart O4rfish's case, pointing out what's wrong with it, and yet you say he's putting genuine effort. Genuine effort in mislynching me?

In a later post of yours, you say that Sky was in RVS at the time. In fact, you call Zak scummy for condemning Sky's vote.
But if this is true, then Bard's vote on Serela wouldn't be bad at all!

You're twisting my words. Again.
I was not saying that Sky_P was in RVS at that time, i actually said it was misunderstanding.
 [/quote]

This is actually a super good catch. It's got that "I don't really care about the reasons why I vote for people" feeling down and exposed.

What it has to do with the reasons how i vote for people?

CF7 was voting me by saying that my vote on Sky was not justified, even though it was the same reason as Serela's

Ahem... You voted Sky_P for his joke RVS vote, which he actually confirmed as such here.

"The last two games, Serela has been dangerously competent and I don't like it."  <-- this was me patting Serela on the head saying 'good job' and that kind of thing.  It's totally a joke. 

[CF7]

Anyway 1:30 am here and going to sleep.

[WHMZakeri]

I'm picking apart O4rfish's case, pointing out what's wrong with it, and yet you say he's putting genuine effort. Genuine effort in mislynching me?

uhh

The word you're looking for is "Misguided". People can be both Town and Wrong at the same time.

The rest of the post isn't really worth responding to. Hopefully you'll give the past dozen posts another good lookover after you're more refreshed from the night's rest.